GANESHSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned Additional GP for respondent No.1 and Shri Kakani, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(2.) Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that erroneously and as per guidance received, the petitioner on 11.06.2014 made a statement, not pressing prayer clause (i), He states that prayer clause (i) is the bone of contention and even today he is required to seek relief in terms of that prayer only.

(3.) Shri Kakani, learned counsel and learned AGP have strongly opposed this change in stand. According to them, after proper application of mind, the petitioner had decided to give up prayer clause (i) and accordingly the petition has been amended to delete that prayer. They, therefore, oppose restoration of that prayer and consideration by this Court.